Worst OS in history?

[PTRACER]

Windows 98 was brilliant at the time. It's easy to slag it off because of what we have today, but 10 years before Windows 98, we only had Windows 2.1. 10 years ago from today we had Windows 98 Second Edition. Windows 98 and Windows 7 operate in exactly the same way. Taskbar, Start Menu, Desktop, icons, point-and-click GUI...It's been updated to make it more modern looking and obviously the code underneath is very different, but it's really the same thing.

People moan about operating systems, but people forget what we had 20 or 25 years ago. Well actually, 25 years ago we still had text based operating systems.

 

[Marc]

People moan about operating systems, but people forget what we had 20 or 25 years ago. Well actually, 25 years ago we still had text based operating systems.

Funnily enough it was 25 years ago that Apple launch the MacIntosh.

 

[StarryEyed]

Windows 98 was brilliant at the time. It's easy to slag it off because of what we have today, but 10 years before Windows 98, we only had Windows 2.1. 10 years ago from today we had Windows 98 Second Edition. Windows 98 and Windows 7 operate in exactly the same way. Taskbar, Start Menu, Desktop, icons, point-and-click GUI...It's been updated to make it more modern looking and obviously the code underneath is very different, but it's really the same thing.

People moan about operating systems, but people forget what we had 20 or 25 years ago. Well actually, 25 years ago we still had text based operating systems.

I agree. W98 was a decent upgrade. It still suffered by being a hybrid operating system with one foot in the DOS world but it was a perfectly serviceable bridge to the awesome XP. Regrettably, Microsoft inserted the ghastly Millennium Edition in there.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

This is getting ridiculous.

There's nothing particularly wrong with Vista at the moment. There's nothing particularly great about it either. It's fairly stable now. The egregious issues were fixed in the first 6 months.

How can it be the worst OS in history?

I swear, this is just trendy osmosis. People are just absorbing this "Vista is horrific and Windows 7 is ama-zing!!!" stuff because everybody else is saying it.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

This is getting ridiculous. There's nothing particularly wrong with Vista at the moment. There's nothing particularly great about it either. It's fairly stable. The egregious issues were fixed in the first 6 months.

How can it be the worst OS in history?

For various reasons that really have nothing to do with the OS itself.

1. People don't like change. Vista works considerably differently from XP.
2. Driver support has been absolutely abysmal. Shame on the manufacturers who won't support Vista. Unbelievable.
3. The overly-complicated pricing model. How many versions of one OS do we really need?!

The only thing it has in common with Me is poor adoption. It's not a marginal improvement over XP, it's a significant change and it requires adjustment. People didn't like the new GUI of Windows 95, either, but they just dealt with it--sometimes they waited until 98 to jump on board, though. We've had the same basic GUI paradigm for Windows since 1995, you know? People just don't like to change, I guess.

Vista did and does have problems in and of itself, but they are far less egregious than the problems, say, 95 or XP had at launch.

 

[Marc]

This is getting ridiculous. There's nothing particularly wrong with Vista at the moment. There's nothing particularly great about it either. It's fairly stable. The egregious issues were fixed in the first 6 months.

How can it be the worst OS in history?

For various reasons that really have nothing to do with the OS itself.

1. People don't like change. Vista works considerably differently from XP.
2. Driver support has been absolutely abysmal. Shame on the manufacturers who won't support Vista. Unbelievable.
3. The overly-complicated pricing model. How many versions of one OS do we really need?!

The only thing it has in common with Me is poor adoption. It's not a marginal improvement over XP, it's a significant change and it requires adjustment. People didn't like the new GUI of Windows 95, either, but they just dealt with it--sometimes they waited until 98 to jump on board, though. We've had the same basic GUI paradigm for Windows since 1995, you know? People just don't like to change, I guess.

Vista did and does have problems in and of itself, but they are far less egregious than the problems, say, 95 or XP had at launch.

Well there the was the whole "Vista Ready" debarcle that's seen Intel on the recieving end of a lawsuit.

I'm not sure if there was ever a lawsuit over it, but something similar happened when Microsoft released Win95. People believed about the minimum requirements which go the OS ticking over, just, but forget actually doing anything with it. Microsoft learnt their leason this time. In order to be Windows 7 Ready a system must be able to run the 64bit version of Windows 7.

An Australian retailer had a big midnight opening for the release of Windows 95 only to be innundated by people who couldn't use it on their computer.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Probably because they wanted to make OEMs happy without cannibalizing future Win98 sales.

I think this is pretty much what the deal was. IIRC OSR2 had Win98 coming hot on its heels on the Microsoft roadmap.

...and it did have USB support built in, but it wasn't great. There was a USB add-on for plain 95 IIRC, I'll have to check my old OEM system builder library to verify.

AG, former Microsoft OEM System Builder Program participant.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

As for my candidate for worst OS:

QNX as implemented on the I-Opener net appliance. It was hobbled by design.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

This is getting ridiculous. There's nothing particularly wrong with Vista at the moment. There's nothing particularly great about it either. It's fairly stable. The egregious issues were fixed in the first 6 months.

How can it be the worst OS in history?

For various reasons that really have nothing to do with the OS itself.

1. People don't like change. Vista works considerably differently from XP.
2. Driver support has been absolutely abysmal. Shame on the manufacturers who won't support Vista. Unbelievable.
3. The overly-complicated pricing model. How many versions of one OS do we really need?!

The only thing it has in common with Me is poor adoption. It's not a marginal improvement over XP, it's a significant change and it requires adjustment. People didn't like the new GUI of Windows 95, either, but they just dealt with it--sometimes they waited until 98 to jump on board, though. We've had the same basic GUI paradigm for Windows since 1995, you know? People just don't like to change, I guess.

Vista did and does have problems in and of itself, but they are far less egregious than the problems, say, 95 or XP had at launch.

Well there the was the whole "Vista Ready" debarcle that's seen Intel on the recieving end of a lawsuit.

I'm not sure if there was ever a lawsuit over it, but something similar happened when Microsoft released Win95. People believed about the minimum requirements which go the OS ticking over, just, but forget actually doing anything with it. Microsoft learnt their leason this time. In order to be Windows 7 Ready a system must be able to run the 64bit version of Windows 7.

An Australian retailer had a big midnight opening for the release of Windows 95 only to be innundated by people who couldn't use it on their computer.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that "Vista Capable" nightmare. That reminds me of the whole other side of the debacle: Microsoft mishandled Vista adoption from day one. The OS itself was fine--if you had the hardware to run it. But way too many PCs were sold that couldn't really handle it. Major screwup on MS' part. Even their own VPs were pissed off and confused about the whole thing.

 

[CorporalClegg]

People moan about operating systems, but people forget what we had 20 or 25 years ago. Well actually, 25 years ago we still had text based operating systems.

Funnily enough it was 25 years ago that Apple launch the MacIntosh.

Just to clarify, Apple didn't invent the desktop GUI as so many seem to think. The Mac introduced point-and-click, but the GUI was old-hat by that time.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Yeah, isn't it Xerox PARC that's pretty much credited with inventing the GUI as we know it?

 

[StarryEyed]

Microsoft has always been downright fraudulent when it comes to hardware requirements. It finally bit them in the ass with Vista.

 

[Marc]

Yeah, isn't it Xerox PARC that's pretty much credited with inventing the GUI as we know it?

yep - Steve Jobs visited there in the mid 70s and got the idea so yes I know Apple didn't invent. The first mass produced system with a gui was Apple Lisa but that suffered through for lack of any sort of network connectivity combined with a $10,000 price tag.

So that left it down to the Mac to be the first commerically successful PC with a GUI (and connectivity).

 

[Alpha_Geek]

yep - Steve Jobs visited there in the mid 70s and got the idea so yes I know Apple didn't invent...

The Xerox Alto is in the Smithsonian, complete with celluloid overlays for "color". Apparently no longer on display, though.

http://historywired.si.edu/object.cfm?ID=337

 

[PTRACER]

One thing I'm confused by is why RISC OS is still being developed. Last time I used a computer with that on was when I was still in school, before Windows PCs became the norm.

 

[Marc]

One thing I'm confused by is why RISC OS is still being developed. Last time I used a computer with that on was when I was still in school, before Windows PCs became the norm.

because one of the CPUs it runs on is the ARM and thanks to licenceing the ARM is going very strong.

http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/09/10/28/2057200/ARM-Stealthily-Rising-As-a-Low-End-Contender

Plus it's now an Open Source project and pretty nice system by all accounts so lots of people probably love to play around with it.

After all they keep trying to bring back the Amiga.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I have a Palm Centro, which has an ARM CPU, after all.

The Nintendo DS has ARMs in it, too.

Damn things are everywhere.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Technically, versions of Windows for the home market before XP were graphical user interfaces that ran on top of a DOS rather than operating systems in their own right. (2000 and NTs 3.1 - 4.0 were OSes, but not intended for home use.) Kinda disqualifies ME - which is still better than MS Bob as a GUI, anyway. (ME actually runs very well if ALL of your drivers are WDM, or if ALL of your drivers are non-WDM, but it runs horribly if you use a mix - which is why every once in a while you'll run across someone who just absolutely swears ME was "da bomb" and no one else knows what they're talking about - they happened by luck to get a system that happened to have the drivers right.)

My choice for worst would be the Timex Operating System that came with the Timex Sinclair. MS-DOS 4.x would be close behind, though.

 

[Maurice]

Atari DOS 3.0

 

[anti-matter]

We've had a computer since back in the DOS days and after many updates and computers I'd have to say windows ME aka Millennium was the bottom of the barrel.